Great points. He was absolutely allowed to still practice with the team and workout with them as well. He was only restricted from playing in games, and traveling with the team. He kept his scholarship.

Not being able to play in the games is significant. Has his game developed? Has it regressed? How does he handle playing against some of the best competition in the world in an actual organized ball environment in N.A. (not an all-star game).

Are you kidding me? This is up there with one of the most ignorant things I've ever read.
There is so much wrong with this statement.

He did 'not go an play in Kentucky' because the NCAA ruled he received payment, and thus eliminating him from competition. He didn't go and play in the Euro-league, because he got to keep his scholarship to Kentucky, continue to train and Practice with the team, while also getting a Top Notch Education for a year. Can you blame him?

As for him being 'exposed', well thats a whole other issue. Because he exposed all those American born, college bound players pretty handely.

Being exposed is a possibility. Once again, NOT saying he won't be a good or even great pro, just saying that the inactivity is a concern whether he practiced or not.

Remember Felipe Lopez? Out of HS he was billed as the next Jordan and was on cover of S.I when deciding to going to attend St. Johns. Performed well there but not as well as the hype would have dictated. When he got to the pros he was average.

I am not saying Kanter is not going to pan out but HS-College-and NBA competition are increasing steps and it's good to see how a player performs or at least projects on all of these different levels. His inactivity at Kentucky hurts him in a sense as I don't think it's a given that he would have torn up Div 1 last year at Kentucky.

???Bigs always finish in traffic - it's where they live...the clips we've seen are him finishing on highschool bigs and it seems like he hardly creates space...I see him being blocked at the rim a lot. The game is changing, wiry athletic bigs who can run are the new mold....

How was Evans able to get 12 rebounds a game? Reggie can barely dunk in a game. Most rebounds are retrieved at or below rim level. Sullinger is another good example, albeit at the college game. One of the greatest rebounders ever was Rodman - athletic and long but hardly a leaper - especially in CHI.

If Kanter's knees check out (again more rumour) then I would pick him at 3 - maybe even 2. I think Jonas has the higher ceiling but is also a greater risk - all my opinion.

I am not saying Kanter is not going to pan out but HS-College-and NBA competition are increasing steps and it's good to see how a player performs or at least projects on all of these different levels. His inactivity at Kentucky hurts him in a sense as I don't think it's a given that he would have torn up Div 1 last year at Kentucky.

No, guarded skepticism about a guy that no one has seen play in a year isn't warranted. You're just an uninformed hater.

Plus, you're forgetting about his large track record. Dude played 9 games, NINE GAMES, as a seldom used reserve for Fenerbahçe two years ago. Come on, everyone has seen those games. He also played high school ball 2 seasons ago. What more do you want?

In any case, I'm sure we can trust the draft experts without reservation. They never get it wrong. Look at how awesome Darko Milicic has been.

???Bigs always finish in traffic - it's where they live...the clips we've seen are him finishing on highschool bigs and it seems like he hardly creates space...I see him being blocked at the rim a lot. The game is changing, wiry athletic bigs who can run are the new mold....

Is this why a guy like Zach Randolph can dominate offensively, despite being the opposite of what you suggest. The Raptors had a wiry, athletic big and couldn't get out of the first round with him. Who really cares what the new mold is. That only matters if you want to do what everyone else is doing. The good teams don't do that. They simply get talent and make the rest of the league adjust.

And playing against men in a professional league does give you an advantage. While the players in the league might not be as talented as a Div 1 power conference teams your playing against experienced professional basketball players. Not sure how that isn't a significant advantage in his development especially when matched up against more inexeprienced players who are still getting coached up and might not understand the nuances of the game.

Thats ridiculous. Then why wouldn't everybody follow what Brandon Jennings did? Obviously there is a reason players choose to play for free in the NCAA as opposed to making Millions playing over seas for a year. If there was an advantage to be had, then everyone would do it, because you can make money and make yourself better.

You are essentially arguing in my favour. You are saying he's better than all the American players.
Whether thats because he played Pro ball is besides the point.

Is this why a guy like Zach Randolph can dominate offensively, despite being the opposite of what you suggest. The Raptors had a wiry, athletic big and couldn't get out of the first round with him. Who really cares what the new mold is. That only matters if you want to do what everyone else is doing. The good teams don't do that. They simply get talent and make the rest of the league adjust.

If Kanter can play, that's all that matters.

Enough Centers make a living under the rim. Marc Gasol and Andrew Bogut just few that make a difference under the rim.

Enough Centers make a living under the rim. Marc Gasol and Andrew Bogut just few that make a difference under the rim.

Great points. And those guys weigh about the same as Kanter as well (Kanter is 260, maybe 270 now; they are 260 & 265 respectively). They have an inch on him, but as I've said before, he's right around Kendrick Perkins (another 'below the rim' Center) who is actually an inch shorter than Kanter at 6'10".

Y'know, come to think of it, with Bynum, Lopez, Perkins, Bogut, Gasol, Noah, Nene etc. all being, essentially, this 'below the rim' type Center, I'm not sure I want this "Wiry, Athletic blah blah blah" center that they speak of.
Name one good Center that plays in this new 'Mold'.

Great points. And those guys weigh about the same as Kanter as well (Kanter is 260, maybe 270 now; they are 260 & 265 respectively). They have an inch on him, but as I've said before, he's right around Kendrick Perkins (another 'below the rim' Center) who is actually an inch shorter than Kanter at 6'10".

Y'know, come to think of it, with Bynum, Lopez, Perkins, Bogut, Gasol, Noah, Nene etc. all being, essentially, this 'below the rim' type Center, I'm not sure I want this "Wiry, Athletic blah blah blah" center that they speak of.
Name one good Center that plays in this new 'Mold'.

...and this guy appears to have more of a game than Perkins, though probably not the glare.

Too difficult to respond directly to all the different "points" being made in this thread, so I'll just paraphrase (and as a pre-emptive note, I'm less arguing for Kanter and more arguing against some of the silly points being made):

1. "He's undersized for a center because he's 6'11."

Does it really matter if his eyebrows are an inch lower than someone else's, or that someone else has a bigger forehead? Is that how we judge basketball players these days, instead of things like standing reach, wingspan, vertical, strength and skill? It's just funny. Kanter measures 6'11" (in shoes) and 261 lbs back in July 2010 and is undersized, but Aldrich, who was 6'9" without shoes (6'11.25" in shoes) and 236 lbs during last year's predraft camp has legit center size? Really? Maybe Kanter should ask Aldrich for a shoe rec, because those 2.25" heels could help make him a better center.

2. "He doesn't seem himself as a C."

See #3 below. Also, Horford doesn't see himself as a C, but he's one of the better ones in the league.

3. "The NBA is moving away from traditional bigs and toward wiry, athletic bigs who can run."

See #2 above. It's either one or the other; can't be both. Also, I love Tim W's point that the good teams couldn't care less what the "mold" is, because they are the ones setting it. Truth.

4. "Undersized + plays below the rim = shorter Hoffa."

Chuck Hayes is undersized and plays below the rim. I guess that makes him an even shorter Hoffa? Or is he not white enough? Just saying.

Seriously though, I don't see where the comparison is. If you read Hoffa's scouting report, it could be summed up as "big and strong, high motor, very raw, very foul prone." The only common traits are that Kanter is also strong and has a high motor. If you actually look past that, the rest of Kanter's scouting report would say "high skill level, polished game, high IQ." Kanter and Hoffa are two very different players.

5. "He only looked good back then because he was a man playing against high schoolers."

Since when was being a better physical specimen than your peers a negative? I saw this same argument in a different thread knocking Kanter down a peg because of his physical advantage over his peers, and then praising Valanciunas for the potential to grow into his frame because he's only 18? Seriously? Have we forgotten that Kanter is younger than Valanciunas (by half a month, sure, but only in bizarro-world does that also become a negative)? The man vs boy argument would make more sense if Kanter was a 21 year old college senior playing against 18 year old frosh. Also, when did a bird in the bush become more attractive than a bird in hand? I'd rather have Kanter's NBA-ready body than Valanciunas' potential to become stronger. Plenty of prospects have the "potential" to grow into their frames and never do. As we've probably learned over the last 16 years of watching the Raptors, "potential" is just another word for "lacking".

---

To be honest, if it came down between Kanter and Valanciunas, I'd rather have the former (I'd rather have Irving over both, of course). Valanciunas has length but doesn't really seem to put it to good use.

Defensively, they seem like a wash. Valanciunas is better on help, and Kanter is better on his man (due to his strength). I know we're tired of poor help defenders after dealing with Bargnani, but I'm sure we'd eventually grow tired of watching Valanciunas get abused in the post as well.

From the scouting reports I've read on Valanciunas, it seems much of the praise is about his potential, whereas much of Kanter's praise is for his polish. I also like his rebounding mentality (he's supposedly a better rebounder than Valanciunas, so that's a plus). I'd normally go for the player with the highest ceiling (not saying Valanciunas necessarily has the higher ceiling, btw), but in terms of reachable ceilings, I just don't see Valanciunas being anything more than a solid 12-8 player, and that's if he doesn't bust.

Great points. And those guys weigh about the same as Kanter as well (Kanter is 260, maybe 270 now; they are 260 & 265 respectively). They have an inch on him, but as I've said before, he's right around Kendrick Perkins (another 'below the rim' Center) who is actually an inch shorter than Kanter at 6'10".

Y'know, come to think of it, with Bynum, Lopez, Perkins, Bogut, Gasol, Noah, Nene etc. all being, essentially, this 'below the rim' type Center, I'm not sure I want this "Wiry, Athletic blah blah blah" center that they speak of.
Name one good Center that plays in this new 'Mold'.

I agree wholeheartedly, but just gotta laugh, ya don't want to include Dwight Howard?

My big concern with Kanter is with his defense. Basically, there seems to be a deafening silence in this regard, other than scattered fragments here and there. I'm not saying he's a bad defender, I'm just saying I don't know because no one has anything to say.

I have no doubts that he will be a pretty good to excellent offensive C, whether early on or down the line. But there's also Valanciunas, who is an equally intriguing option: for all the talk of Kanter's offensive skills, you hear the same about Valanciunas' defense. Kanter is definitely the safer option, I would think, as he seems to have the fundamentals down and it's through these that he succeeds (Ed Davis style). Valanciunas - albeit I don't have much to back this up - seems to be successful due to his motor, drive and tenacity (Javale McGee style), which leads me to think he's the bigger gamble, but if he learns the fundamentals could have the bigger payoff. I don't know which I'd prefer, but one of the values - if not the greatest value - of having BC as the GM is that no matter who he decides to choose, I have complete confidence that he will have likely chosen the better player. One thing I will say is that it's quite possible and indeed likely that if Kanter had played this season he could easily have been the consensus #1. I think it's possible he's that good (that, and centers seem to be locks for 1st overall: in the past 30 years more than half of all 1st picks have been Cs).

It also says a lot about this draft that 2 of the 3 top picks are players who basically played no ball at all this past season.

What I want is to have the Raps bring both Kanter and Valanciunas in for workouts together and have them square off. That'd be something the details of which would be worth reading about.

I've read good things about Kanter's defense. He's not going to be much of a shotblocker, but he's got a high IQ on that end of the floor and knows how to play team defense, which would already be an improvement.

This from DraftExpress...

Defensively, Kanter had some excellent possessions in practice, coming up with some blocks by being a step ahead of the play and contesting shots with his positioning, rather than his athleticism. His body helps him fight for position on the block, and his physical nature allowed him to deny penetration when his man attempted to take him off the dribble. Once the shot goes up, Kanter does a nice job of sealing off his man and pursuing the ball. Though his ability to rebound outside of his area wasnt as apparent as it was in junior play, hes still, more often than not, the player coming down with the ball in a crowd.

Too difficult to respond directly to all the different "points" being made in this thread, so I'll just paraphrase (and as a pre-emptive note, I'm less arguing for Kanter and more arguing against some of the silly points being made):

1. "He's undersized for a center because he's 6'11."

Does it really matter if his eyebrows are an inch lower than someone else's, or that someone else has a bigger forehead? Is that how we judge basketball players these days, instead of things like standing reach, wingspan, vertical, strength and skill? It's just funny. Kanter measures 6'11" (in shoes) and 261 lbs back in July 2010 and is undersized, but Aldrich, who was 6'9" without shoes (6'11.25" in shoes) and 236 lbs during last year's predraft camp has legit center size? Really? Maybe Kanter should ask Aldrich for a shoe rec, because those 2.25" heels could help make him a better center.

2. "He doesn't seem himself as a C."

See #3 below. Also, Horford doesn't see himself as a C, but he's one of the better ones in the league.

3. "The NBA is moving away from traditional bigs and toward wiry, athletic bigs who can run."

See #2 above. It's either one or the other; can't be both. Also, I love Tim W's point that the good teams couldn't care less what the "mold" is, because they are the ones setting it. Truth.

4. "Undersized + plays below the rim = shorter Hoffa."

Chuck Hayes is undersized and plays below the rim. I guess that makes him an even shorter Hoffa? Or is he not white enough? Just saying.

Seriously though, I don't see where the comparison is. If you read Hoffa's scouting report, it could be summed up as "big and strong, high motor, very raw, very foul prone." The only common traits are that Kanter is also strong and has a high motor. If you actually look past that, the rest of Kanter's scouting report would say "high skill level, polished game, high IQ." Kanter and Hoffa are two very different players.

5. "He only looked good back then because he was a man playing against high schoolers."

Since when was being a better physical specimen than your peers a negative? I saw this same argument in a different thread knocking Kanter down a peg because of his physical advantage over his peers, and then praising Valanciunas for the potential to grow into his frame because he's only 18? Seriously? Have we forgotten that Kanter is younger than Valanciunas (by half a month, sure, but only in bizarro-world does that also become a negative)? The man vs boy argument would make more sense if Kanter was a 21 year old college senior playing against 18 year old frosh. Also, when did a bird in the bush become more attractive than a bird in hand? I'd rather have Kanter's NBA-ready body than Valanciunas' potential to become stronger. Plenty of prospects have the "potential" to grow into their frames and never do. As we've probably learned over the last 16 years of watching the Raptors, "potential" is just another word for "lacking".

---

To be honest, if it came down between Kanter and Valanciunas, I'd rather have the former (I'd rather have Irving over both, of course). Valanciunas has length but doesn't really seem to put it to good use.

Defensively, they seem like a wash. Valanciunas is better on help, and Kanter is better on his man (due to his strength). I know we're tired of poor help defenders after dealing with Bargnani, but I'm sure we'd eventually grow tired of watching Valanciunas get abused in the post as well.

From the scouting reports I've read on Valanciunas, it seems much of the praise is about his potential, whereas much of Kanter's praise is for his polish. I also like his rebounding mentality (he's supposedly a better rebounder than Valanciunas, so that's a plus). I'd normally go for the player with the highest ceiling (not saying Valanciunas necessarily has the higher ceiling, btw), but in terms of reachable ceilings, I just don't see Valanciunas being anything more than a solid 12-8 player, and that's if he doesn't bust.

Not being able to play in the games is significant. Has his game developed? Has it regressed? How does he handle playing against some of the best competition in the world in an actual organized ball environment in N.A. (not an all-star game).

It's not as if Kanter has just sat and done nothing. He practiced every day with one of the best college teams and one of the country's best coaches. And Kentucky's center, Josh Harrellson credits playing against Kanter in practice for his sudden improvement this year. And while Harrellson isn't a great center, there's a chance he might be drafted in June, so he's decent.

You look at Ed Davis last year and he couldn't even practice for half of the year, but he did pretty well this year.

I certainly would have liked to have seen Kanter play at Kentucky, or somewhere else, but from everything I've read, his game has progressed this past year.

There's been quite a bit of talk about his performance at the Nike Hoops Summit and how well he played.

That got me thinking.. did Bargnani ever play for the Internation Select Team? If so.. did he dominate like Kanter? He should've ... one would think ... instead ... complete opposite. In 2004 they got spanked by 20, and some dude named Luka Bogdanovic led the team in scoring.
Check out the American Team they played against though. HOLY SMOKES!

Anyway ya.. not sure of my point to this, just thought that was interesting. haha
Suppose it can interpreted a few different ways.

Either Kanters performance means nothing, because Bargnani turned out to be 'Awesome'.
OR Kanter is actually that much more assertive and a more dominant presense down low.